LJensen wrote:In my eyes "finding the solution" comes down to a solution between the people who think we should continue to consume resources at our present level, and those (of which I am a part of) who are advocates for responsible use of resources. What I mean by that is we should use what God has provided us on this planet, but we should be mindful to not abuse or overuse those resources.

Nobody disagrees about the efficient use of resources. I haven't run across the pro-waste lobby. The free market (individuals making their decision on the worth of things based on their individual value systems) determine the value of things. The government should set regulations to protect health and safety such that the cost of pollution, etc. is included in the cost of the service.

For example, nuclear power has the lowest death rate per unit of electricity produced. That means that they are overpaying for the cost of saving lives or the competition is underpaying. Ideally, the source of electricity should have no impact on health, safety, or the environment. In reality, politics is a huge factor.

The problem with geting to the ideal solution is that people value things very differently. People pay a lot of money to avoid fear, especially fear of the known unknowns. Emotions are a huge factor in determining what people find acceptable. How do you equate getting run over by a coal train and getting cancer. Rationally, getting cancer is better because you get to live a 100% healthy life for years after you were exposed to the thing that caused the cancer as opposed to immediate death. Also, the coal train will cripple and mame a lot of people in addition to the people that it kills. How do you compare crippling injuries with fatal injuries. If you had a choice of losing a limb or a 1 in a million chance of death, which would you choose? Obviously, you can trade a small number of deaths to avoid a large number of serious injuries, but everybody would have a different break point and most people would refuse to engage in the conversation at all. They would stick their head as far into the sand as possible.

This weighting of different value systems is a function of government because regulations and standards must be set. They are arbitrary, but they are necessary. They will evolve over time as our collective value system moves, but the purpose should be to reflect our values and not pick winners and losers. This is also why I believe in a small central government (one size fits all), and larger state and local governments, and as much individual responsibility (maximum number of sizes) because the closer to the individual you get, the better they reflect the consensus of all people that must comply with the regulations.

So "efficient" use of resources is an incredibly complicated discussion. Nobody is for waste, but most of what we consume is way beyond our needs. Is everything beyond our needs waste? I think these people that own these massive houses are wasting their money, but obviously they do not.

I am anti-wind and solar. They simply consume to much land, concrete, and steel. I think that is an incredibly inefficient use of resources. I don't think we should outlaw them, but I just wish they would stop forcing me to pay for something that is so wasteful. If the environmentalist do-gooders lived in the country instead of the cities, these things would be outlawed. The do-gooders want to determine for everybody else what is "efficient" and what is not based on their value system.

The free market determines the value of things based on the rules of the game (regulations). We need to work towards sound regulations that treat all alternatives as equally as possible and then simply let people decide what is "efficient" and what is not.

Global warming theory is a huge case of what do you value and how much do you value it.

There is lot of uncertainty in the consequences of increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Uncertainty means fear for many people. That is a huge factor. For most that's it and their emotions take over from there. They don't think even to the obvious that the only certainty is that your integrated cumulative probablility of death is precisely 1.0.

For many, environmentalism has taken on religious fervor and you must spend large amounts of money to buy cars, light bulbs, toilets, etc., that do not perform there functions in an efficient or cost effective way. This is the windmillaphiles and the compact flourescents, hybrid cars, and winmills are their religious icons. Nancy nonstop Pelosi is an icon lover, but then wants a larger jet than necessary so she can fly nonstop from DC to San Francisco. God forbid she has to stop for gas, when most of us have to endure long layovers when we fly most places.

That is before the legitimate tradeoffs between different resources. Renewables consume large amounts of land, steel, concrete, etc. because of their inherent low intensity. Coal uses the least amounts of steel and concrete, land use varies with the coal source. Nuclear requires a less steel and concrete than renewables, but more than coal, and very little land. There is also a difference between land permanently paved over in the case of the physical size of the sites per unit energy produced versus land used to mine coal, which theoretically can be repaired to look more or less like before you started.

Sure this is all very easy if you are simple minded, but once you start considering just a few of the real tradeoffs that need to be considered, it quickly becomes a simple matter of the values of you as an individual, which determine what you think the right path is. We preach about not imposing our values on other people, but that is exactly what the global warming zealots are trying to do. That is Obama's plan to impose his values on everybody. God forbid Bush did that.

MacMan wrote:do you believe that one volcano erruption can do more to the earth's atmosphere than mankind has ever done throughout history? If so, we must then believe that any futile attempt from mankind can do nothing for or against the earth.

Mac, it has been shown that, yes a large volcano can impact global weather in a few days. Science is tending to think that a volcano is what casued the mini ice age. But that's not the point. Do you think a few hundred nuclear bombs might have an impact on the earth, even though it's only the result of our puny human handiwork?

The point is, if you could put every smokestack and tailpipe together into one really big exhaust pipe, you'd see that we're putting out a lot of stuff, and over time, it adds up. What about that is so hard to grasp?

Even if you don't grasp it or simply disagree, what's wrong with using our resources wisely and efficiently, simply so we are more sucessful in the long run?

MacMan wrote:This debate is the same as the darwinic theories to us Christians - we think it's utter BS. Too many scientist agree with us in that the fuzzy logic used to present Global warming is insufficient at best to predict anything and the zealot Al Gore can be refuted on each and every bullet point he makes in his presentation. How egocentric of man to think he can have any impact on anything apart from God. Isn't that the true debate?

Correction. Some of yo think it's BS. Most think evolution is the hand of God, and that Genesis was a simple way to explain how we came into being to a very early, and unsophisticated, peoples...Think of Genisis as a metaphor for the big bang, and made Adam and then Eve as a metaphor for putting all the pieces in place (materials, sunlight, water, all of it) so that we wer and are the eventual preordained outcome.

As far as fuzzy science goes. All science begins fuzzy to some, and is either developed further or, based on new findings, goes in another direction. sometimes it even doubles back on itself. That's how science works and science is just a systematic method to figure out how the universe works... you know, using the brains God gave us.

The main reason I detract from Al Gore's position is because of the billions in profits his company stands to gain from "carbon credits" enforced on this country by law...kind of a conflict of interests. He has an agenda and it has nothing to do with the environment....but he wants everyone to think that it has everything to do with the environment. Anyone else see the it?

The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

dudejcb wrote:Even if you don't grasp it or simply disagree, what's wrong with using our resources wisely and efficiently, simply so we are more sucessful in the long run?

As long as I am the one that gets to set the laws in regards to what is wise and efficient and what is not. Either that or let the free market do that.

And the more I get to see the folks that set the laws. . . Frank, Pelosi et al., I become more incensed with this current adminsitration, NO - our Gov't in toto - most specifcally - the NWO religionist. Yes it's Bush and Obama. . .

dudejcb wrote:Even if you don't grasp it or simply disagree, what's wrong with using our resources wisely and efficiently, simply so we are more sucessful in the long run?

As long as I am the one that gets to set the laws in regards to what is wise and efficient and what is not. Either that or let the free market do that.

a truly scary thought. I can see it now: cooling towers and reactor containment vessels as far as the eye can see... bass and duck ponds that never freeze over, cuz well .... you know ... they're thermo-nuclear heated. sounds like a bunch of giant jacuzzis in future world.

joking aside, you made a comment that you'd never seen a pro-waste lobby. Well in this disposable society I think pro-replacment and designed obsolescence; car, tire and oil comapanies buying up and tearing out, railroad tracks, or reposessing electric vehcles... we have seen a pro waste lobby. but ususlly they don't just call themselves that. they always come up with some sweet sounding euphamistic name like, "Americans for a Bright and Shiny Tomorrow" or "The Hudson Institute," or "The Heritage Foundation" or "The Cato Institute."

dudejcb wrote:Even if you don't grasp it or simply disagree, what's wrong with using our resources wisely and efficiently, simply so we are more sucessful in the long run?

As long as I am the one that gets to set the laws in regards to what is wise and efficient and what is not. Either that or let the free market do that.

a truly scary thought.

That's my point. It is just a scary of a thought for me that your guy Obama is in charge. You are setting up a system that is highly dangereous if the wrong people get in charge. Too much power in too few hands. That is the system you support. A system that everybody loves when they are running the show and fear when they are not. Let's try to get the power out of washington and spread in a lot more hands. It's just the safe thing to do. I know it's not your eutopian vision, but as an engineer, have you ever seen anything that is eutopian. Safety first and a top heavy government is inherently unstable and we are getting more top heavy every day. Let's hope we can pull back before we reach a tipping point.

I don't see what you're talking about. Obama has not tried to consolidate executive power in any way. Bush and Cheney were the ones that tried to put the Presidency above the law and give him unconstitutional powers, and a free hand to do things simply because he is the President. Obama has done a few things to turn that back but I'm not going to the effort to research the specifics right now, but I really haven't heard anyting about him adding to Presdential power. did you hear this on FIX News?

I don't see what you're talking about. Obama has not tried to consolidate executive power in any way. Bush and Cheney were the ones that tried to put the Presidency above the law and give him unconstitutional powers, and a free hand to do things simply because he is the President. Obama has done a few things to turn that back but I'm not going to the effort to research the specifics right now, but I really haven't heard anyting about him adding to Presdential power. did you hear this on FIX News?

What in the world are you talking about?

The Federal government is setting all kinds of rules. They are deciding for the entire county everything from what lightbulbs we should use, to what cars we should drive, from what toilets we can use to what powerplants we should build. The Federal government just grew massively in the last couple months. Bush and Obama just took a country that was already top heavy and made it massively more top heavy. I'm not talking about the relative power of the executive branch and congress, I am talking about the relative power of the Federal government and the people. The Federal government, 100% under the control of the Democrats, now control something like 1/3 of the economy. Your cool with that because the Dems are in charge, but that will not last for ever. Do you want the Republicans to control 1/3 or more of the economy? Obama wants to make it an even larger fraction. I don't want politicians, especially a relative handful of politicians, to have that much power. It is dangereous. As you pointed out, giving that much power to me would scare the hell out of you, there is a simple way to make sure that never happens, stop the growth of the federal government. We are in the midst of the largest power grab in history in terms of dollars. The Federal government has just seized control of an additional 10% of the country and they want to seize even more. Obama wants to seize the health care industry, which would easily put more than half of the economy in the hands of a few dozen people in Washington. That is doomed to failure and it is inherently unstable. Don't you get it? Any knew power that is given to Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress will likely end up at some points in the hands of someone like Sarah Palin. That's why Bush growing the government scared me because I knew that at some point a Jimmy Carter, a Richard Nixon, or a Barack Obama would be in charge and would really screw things up. Sort of like right now. You can change the names, but the conclusion is the same. It's just plain stupid to give that much power to that few people, even if at the moment, they are people you agree with.

SpinnerMan wrote:The Federal government is setting all kinds of rules. They are deciding for the entire county everything from what lightbulbs we should use, to what cars we should drive, from what toilets we can use to what powerplants we should build.

Hello. that's what governments are supposed to do...set appropriate laws, standars, and regualtions to guide (incent) the free market in those directions that are thought best overall for society as a whole...fto provide a reasonable degree of stability over the long term.

I don't know anyone who wants the government to own industry (at least not for very long), and I wish we were not in the position of having to save super-corporations so they don't drag everything down, but it seems as though this is where we are for now. I've come around to think you were right before ;that we should've let them file chapter 11 and then offer assistance. And that's probably what we should do soon, rather than throw more good money after bad. I don't buy it that these are the only people that can untagle their Gordian knot.

SpinnerMan wrote:The Federal government just grew massively in the last couple months. Bush and Obama just took a country that was already top heavy and made it massively more top heavy. I'm not talking about the relative power of the executive branch and congress, I am talking about the relative power of the Federal government and the people. The Federal government, 100% under the control of the Democrats, now control something like 1/3 of the economy. Your cool with that because the Dems are in charge, but that will not last for ever. Do you want the Republicans to control 1/3 or more of the economy? Obama wants to make it an even larger fraction. I don't want politicians, especially a relative handful of politicians, to have that much power.

I'm not "cool" with it, it's just where we are for some reasons. I do not think the government has geown. Your mixing taxpayer ownership of shares of private corporations with government people being hired to run the operations... which would be growing government.

SpinnerMan wrote:The Federal government has just seized control of an additional 10% of the country and they want to seize even more. Obama wants to seize the health care industry, which would easily put more than half of the economy in the hands of a few dozen people in Washington. That is doomed to failure and it is inherently unstable. Don't you get it? Any knew power that is given to Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress will likely end up at some points in the hands of someone like Sarah Palin.

There is a differnce between siezing assests and changing how systems function. And yes, the idea of Sarah palin being in charge of anything scares me..my take is she wants power for power's sake. It's rare but there are some people who are actually more motivated by service than self-interest.

The health care industry needs reform badly. We pay more per capita than anyone and deliver to far fewer. I've gone through the logic supporting this before mulitple times, so won't waste any effort doing so again. I will ask this: do you think our health care system could be improved? (Meaning more efficient with cost more directll focussed on providing actual health care with as little administrative overhead as possible...and get everyone contributing to it and unburden employers.)

SpinnerMan wrote:It's just plain stupid to give that much power to that few people, even if at the moment, they are people you agree with.

I tend to agree. This is a reiteration of your point above, and at this point we have provided money to purchase a stake as a way to save what is broadly thought to be necessary to save. That is differnt from putting government employees in to run the day to day operations. If we didn't have a stake in their eventual success how would we ever have enen the hope of getting the money back. If we're not gonna let them file ch 11, maybe we should go the route we did with the savings and loan BS. You notice we don't own andy savings and loans, right. And we ddin'r for very long, Unfortunately there are no savings and loans anymore because someone changed the regulations so savings and loans could become banks. Genius!

You would think that since we are about to completely cut the balls of our economy with all this cap and trade farse that at least the people of this country should be allowed to see the "experts" debate. A pannel of 10 debaters with 5 on each side of the issue would then have a series of three televised debates on national television. The warming crowd I doubt would agree to this because it is beneath their intellectual brilliance. Al Gore will not agree to be in the same frickin room and debate anybody of substance. If the American people could actually hear the other side without being filtered out by the liberal-enviro press we might be able to stop the further strangulation of our economy.

this "carbon tax" crap has nothing to do with the environment...the science they use is super thin and distorted to fit their conclusions...it is a tax on the use of resources plain and simple. powers that be want to curb the use of those resources.

The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

SpinnerMan wrote:The Federal government is setting all kinds of rules. They are deciding for the entire county everything from what lightbulbs we should use, to what cars we should drive, from what toilets we can use to what powerplants we should build.

Hello. that's what governments are supposed to do...set appropriate laws, standars, and regualtions to guide (incent) the free market in those directions that are thought best overall for society as a whole...fto provide a reasonable degree of stability over the long term.

Not the Federal government. Murder is not a federal issue. Rape is not a federal issue. Armed robbery is not a federal issue. But my toilet and my light bulbs are a federal issue

If your scared of Sarah Palin running that powerful of an executive branch, and I'm scared of Obama running it. There is a solution. It is called conservatism, where nobody runs that powerful of a Federal government. Health care, social security, law enforcement, educations, this can all be handled at the state and local level. Let the Feds focus on the things prescribed in the constitution and then the Congress could actually provide reasonable oversite. It cannot over see 4 or 5 trillion dollars of spending. At that level, it is just a free for all and that is exactly what we are getting.